Agree 100%. The control of the Party by the establishment financed by lobbyists and the Rove crowd is on stage for all to behold.

I agree we need candidates who can win but that doesn't mean win by being a Democrat on many issues. What good is that? We need good mouthpieces. Right now few of the leaders are able to articulate meaningfully. I don't know why they can't get it. The answer is they are bought and paid for.

Batt who beat Cantor has a good mouthpiece. I am impressed by him and I see potential in him.

Rubio is coming back. Yet he has to do a better job of reaching the middle group more. Can't be done just with platitudes.

So the other night before Special Report Charles Krauthammer sang "Rapper's Delight" perfectly. He did say that while he loves the old-school hip hop, his real passion is for GWAR. But none of that is important right now, and besides, what happens in the green room stays in the green room.

That same night, I went on a bit of a rant about Hillary Clinton and how she's a pretty awful politician. I then concluded by saying something I wish I could re-phrase. I said: "And if I were Elizabeth Warren, I would jump in the race today because she is an authentic, truth-telling kind of politician and it would cause utter panic in the Clinton camp."

In response to this my Twitter feed exploded. At the Cleveland talk, the last question was a dyspeptic inquiry into why on earth I would compliment someone like Warren. Michael Graham drove all night from Boston just so he could set fire to a bag of Tom Friedman columns on China (if you know what I mean) on my doorstep.

So look. Here's the deal. I stand by what I said, but I wish I'd said it better. Yes, Liz Warren speaks with a forked tongue about her noble Indian heritage. Yes, I have huge problems with her. But my point is that she would create more problems for Hillary — and that would be awesome. Indeed, that's what my column is about today.If Warren jumped into the race, it would mess up the Clinton's delicate plans like a drunk orangutan with irritable bowel syndrome in a wedding-gown shop. The whole feminist argument behind Hillary's campaign would come apart like something that comes apart in a really funny way ("Dude, how hungover are you?" — The Couch). She would get all kinds of money from left-wing fat cats and the hardcore grassroots crowd. An early Warren candidacy would force Hillary to get in the race earlier than planned if she's going to run. Hillary couldn't stay a "private citizen" above the fray and simultaneously criticize Warren. If she criticizes Warren, she gets into a mess similar to the one she got into when she tried to criticize Obama in 2008. The base loves Warren -- perhaps not as much as they loved Obama, but enough so that Hillary attacks their hero at her peril. Criticizing Warren also exposes Hillary for what she really is. And the sooner Hillary is seen as what she is — a (bad) politician — the sooner her poll numbers go down. Moreover, according to game theory (or maybe not, I just think that sounds cool), a Warren candidacy will have the added incentive of encouraging other Democrats to enter into the race. The moment Warren gives her announcement speech on C-SPAN, aides to Joe Biden will run into his office and shout "Mr. Vice President, I think you should put down your crayons and see this." Andrew Cuomo will stop midway through cutting off the head of Bill de Blasio's favorite horse and have to decide if he's going to get in. Every candidate who gets in encourages more candidates and soon what was supposed to be a Hillary coronation ceremony becomes the Democratic-party equivalent of the fight scene from Anchorman. It's ragnarok, baby!

Now, it's true, I'm being a bit Leninist here. I want to heighten the contradictions, and I do think worse is better when it comes to the Democrats. But that doesn't mean my column or my comments are, in the words of one Twitter follower, a "false-flag operation." I do think Warren taps into a very real populist trend. And while she's probably to the left of Clinton on many issues, I have to say in my gut, I'd rather Warren as president than Clinton. The good news, however, is that I think Warren would be a bad candidate and would lose handily in the general election. So, where's the downside?

Warren, O'Malley, Schweitzer and Hickenlooper didn't make this list. The list is every bit as good (or bad) as other recent years, Kerry, Gephart, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Howard Dean, etc. Some of these are a little weak (Claire McCaskill?), but the point is, there are always names out there and someone rises to the challenge.BTW, who says Hillary is running? Lol.--------------------------------------------------------5 Democrats Who Should Run Against Hillary ClintonThe former secretary of State could be vulnerable in a Democratic primary, but only if qualified candidates decide to challenge her.

By Josh KraushaarJuly 2, 2014It's been remarkable to see how quickly the Democratic Party has coalesced around Hillary Clinton as its expected 2016 nominee, despite clear vulnerabilities she's telegraphed during her book tour. Clinton brings undeniable assets to the table—she'd be the first female president, the Clinton brand is still strong, her fundraising is unmatched—but her recent exposure on the book tour has demonstrated her political limitations as well.

I've outlined some of them in past columns: She's not a particularly good campaigner; she's skilled at staying on message but tone-deaf to the way comments about her wealth could backfire among an economically anxious public. With the threat of terrorism rising and increased turbulence in Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Clinton could find that her record as secretary of State is a major vulnerability in an election where foreign policy is looming as a major issue. Most important, she tied herself to President Obama by accepting his offer to run State, assuming that his coattails would be awfully valuable down the road. Now, with Obama's approval ratings tanking, scandals abounding, and a new Quinnipiac poll showing a plurality of voters consider him the "worst president" since World War II, Clinton knows she needs to keep some distance from Obama while maintaining the excitement of his base. That's not a great place to be.

Her biggest asset is the fact that the entire Democratic Party infrastructure is behind her, seemingly resigned to her vulnerabilities but hopeful about her potential. Even progressives who are nervous about her Wall Street connections are merely hoping to nudge her leftward, and not aggressively challenge her with an actual candidate. With a lackluster Democratic bench, it's hard to find many alternatives even willing to throw their names out there. And let's be clear: Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, whose loose lips would sink a campaign before it launched, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, throwing in his name as a protest candidate, don't qualify.

That doesn't mean there aren't credible candidates who, on paper, could mount a serious challenge. With anti-Washington sentiment running high, this is a promising opportunity for an outsider to run and surprise. True, they don't seem to want to run, whether from fear of the Clinton machine, a desire to avoid challenging someone who might make history, or simply an assumption that 2016 isn't a great year for Democrats.But the candidates exist. Here are some prospects who would normally be touted for higher office but have acquiesced to Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election.

1. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia

Kaine was one of the first Democratic officials to jump on the Obama bandwagon, and he has a resume that normally would be the envy of his fellow pols: swing-state governor; Democratic National Committee chairman; senator elected on Obama's coattails against a former GOP presidential prospect, George Allen. Kaine was on the very short list of potential Obama running mates. If this were the resume of a Republican candidate, it would vault him to the top of the list of 2016 front-runners.

But instead, Kaine took the unusual step in May of endorsing Clinton before she even announced her candidacy, perhaps angling for a Cabinet post over pursuing any possible national ambitions. Maybe being a white man in the Democratic Party is now a vulnerability in the Obama era, but Kaine certainly could score chits as an early Obama supporter who helped swing his state the president's way. And his Midwestern roots, authentic personality (in sharp contrast to Clinton), and executive experience would all be strong selling points to a national audience.

2. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

One of the obvious, yet underappreciated, factors in Obama's upset of Clinton was how powerful a role race played in the 2008 presidential primaries. Clinton had close ties to the African-American community from her days in the White House, but once it became clear that Obama was a serious challenger, he overwhelmingly carried the black vote in nearly every primary state where it mattered.

Why couldn't that dynamic repeat itself in 2016? Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is leaving office, and he is a close ally of Obama's. (Obama even touted him as a prospective candidate.) Unlike the 2008 version of Obama, Patrick boasts executive experience as a two-term governor who had to deal with one of the biggest crises during the Obama presidency—the Boston Marathon bombings. Unlike Mitt Romney before launching his first presidential campaign, Patrick scored solid approval ratings in his last year in office (53 percent in a January 2014 MassINC poll).

Patrick recently said he worries about how Clinton is being viewed as the inevitable nominee, but he hasn't made any moves of his own to suggest he's running. But if he could put a credible team together, he'd be a much more threatening challenger than, say, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

3. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri

In a normal year, a female media-savvy, red-state prosecutor who defied the odds to win a second term in the Senate would be at the top of many Democratic wish lists. But like Kaine, this early Obama supporter was one of the first elected officials to sign up with Clinton's nascent campaign, taking herself out of the conversation. Part of her motive was to ingratiate herself with Team Clinton, who placed McCaaskill on Hillary's "enemies list" after she said she didn't want her daughter near the former president in a Meet the Press interview (as an Obama surrogate).

Instead of sucking up to the Clintons, why not challenge Hillary? Representing a populist state, McCaskill would be well positioned to challenge Clinton on her wealth, ties to corporations, and perceived disconnect from the middle class. Plus, McCaskill's long-term prospects in the Senate aren't great, assuming she doesn't face Todd Akin again in 2018.

4. Former Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin

Where have you gone, Russ Feingold? The former Wisconsin senator and campaign finance reform scold has virtually disappeared from the political arena. Like Clinton, he's now serving in the State Department—as the special envoy for the African Great Lakes region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Like Elizabeth Warren, Feingold would be able to rally progressives around his campaign but he could potentially have more appeal to male voters, a demographic where the party has gotten crushed in the Obama era. Unlike Clinton (and Warren), Feingold took a lone stand for same-sex marriage in 2006, when most elected Democrats opposed such legislation. He's been a longtime critic of outside groups' campaign spending, which has been a rallying cry for liberal Democrats in the age of the super PAC.

Feingold has always marched to the beat of his own drum, and it would be hard to see him prevailing over the better-organized Clinton. But he could persuasively assert he was ahead of the curve on the issues animating today's Democratic Party, a powerful argument for the grassroots base. Indeed, he'd be in a situation similar to that of another reform-minded former Democratic senator, Bill Bradley, who challenged a sitting vice president and nearly won the New Hampshire primary.

5. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon

Winning two terms in an increasingly Republican red state—he ran 9 points ahead of Obama in 2008 and 11 points ahead in 2012—Nixon is one of the most accomplished Democratic governors in the country. The Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske dubbed Nixon the "Teddy Roosevelt of Missouri—vigorous, a champion of the outdoors, constantly touring all corners of the state more than any chief executive in state history." He worked with Republicans to pass comprehensive jobs legislation, cut spending, and passed ahead-of-the-curve legislation incentivizing college graduates to specialize in high-demand health care fields. Nixon won high praise for his handling of the aftermath of the tornadoes that devastated Joplin. And he's won over some social conservatives by allowing restrictions on late-term abortions and reducing the age for residents to purchase a concealed-weapons permit. But he's also expanded Medicaid and focused on boosting spending for education.

In short, his positions on social issues would probably be untenable in today's Democratic Party, where moderates are becoming as extinct as their counterparts in the Republican Party. And Nixon has shown no interest in national office, knowing the near-insurmountable challenges he'd face in a primary.

In 1992, when Democrats nominated a centrist Southern governor as their presidential nominee, it was a move born out of weakness, with party leaders desperately seeking to moderate their image and initially holding little hope they could oust the sitting president. At the onset of the primary, the field was wide open, with the party's biggest-name contenders (Mario Cuomo, Al Gore) opting not to run. The situation could well be reversed in 2016: Democrats acting like they're in a stronger position than the reality, opting for a coronation instead of a contested primary, and ignoring the political logic of nominating an electable moderate outsider who can expand the party's coalition. In 1992's more ideologically diverse Democratic Party, Nixon would be at the top of many Democratic wish lists. But we're still stuck in Clintonworld.

Can only one imagine the liberal and their MSM hoopla over this?They will trumpet this as the seminal turning point in human civilization.

Very possibly right. So many campaign slogans are possible with those two, perhaps "unify by polarizing". I am still betting against Hillary being the nominee, but it occurs to me that if nominated she might pick Biden!

I think Carson could be a good candidate but I'd rather see him as surgeon general...? I think he and Paul are both *potentially* weak on FP, at least looking at experience, but that fact by itself may make them attractive to Dem's/ Indepedents. Carson is so damn *reasonable* sounding in a dispassionate way.

Nobody is asking, but my Dream Team for the Fantasy Election League at present would be a Cruz-Paul ticket with Allen West as Sec Def, Maybe Condi Rice back as Sec of State if she would do it (or even VP, saving Rand Paul as majority leader). Gowdy or Gohmert for AG, or Gowdy for Ag. Mike Lee for Speaker. Sec. of State, that's a tough one... the world is a mess right now and it would be a tough thankless job. Romney as Secretary of Commerce. I'm not sure who on the conservative side of the field has the most FP experience... Dare I say McCain? ON second thought Romney would be pretty good at Sec State.

Hey look, that's like a 60% plus minority ticket... Only because I'm white and 'hate' minorities.

Carson lacks political, foreign policy, and executive experience. Those are three big gaps! He might be good though as a vice-presidential candidate with an assignment of taking on Obamacare.

Foreign policy remains a minefield for all TP/conservatives/Reps. We criticize the limpness of Obama but to run on strength is to be rejected as sounding like Bush. If we run on isolationist tendencies (RP) then we have surrendered both America in the world , , , and a political weakness in the Dems.

I think you're right. I confess I have been somewhat puzzled by Carson's meteoric rise on that basis. I think he is highly, highly intelligent and has both a future role with the conservative movement and serious **potential**. I don't know if he's 'presidential' or if he would not merely be a 'conservative's' version of Obama, i.e. an Ideologue with (in our case) the 'right' ideology but virtually no governing, diplomatic, or legislative experience. But at this point, I also confess that I am starting to see that somehwat as a 'plus' at least from the Conservative side. I also think it's precisely that 'non-government' association that is at least partly behind the initial Obama-phenomena, at least and especially with independents.

Carson has at least made clear that be both 'knows' and would abide by the Constitution. Which is saying something.

Cruz-Carson?

The FP gap is a definitive problem though, with the state of the world... on the other hand, if we were merely to reasert our 'leadership' role in the world, I think (rather 'hope') things would sort of revert back to the natural order of things in teh Pre-Bush world. The war is 'over' (at least 'for now', and at least 'as far as the American people, and our allies appear to be concerned'). So, the next president will have, I believe, at least **the opportunity** to reassert some sort of 'leader of the free world' role. To what end, I'm not sure.

Regardless, I am solidly in the camp that believes it is high time for conservatives to stop pussy-footing around, and to run constructively on our strengths and values, and not on who is merely the closest-thing-we-have-to-a-Democrat. Philosophically, it is a question of if you are trying to 'play for the middle' (Romney, McCain, Bush II, even, at least first term) or if you instead believe that conservatism can resonate with people (Reagan) and not simply be off-putting to enough of the populace to matter (Goldwater).

What I believe was the central 'kernel' that made Reagan 'great' was that he was a conservative at heart and a believer in conseervatism, but one who was walso illing to make senisble compromises in order to put the country first. Personally, I think that is a central problem of our moment-- both sides, but especially the left have stopped playing 'for country' and only play for 'party' and 'power' nowadays-- which translates tactically into DIVIDING the country and playing one group against the other.

Can you imagine even a Tip O'Neil or Teddy Kennedy supporting an open border of the variety we have today? I can't... maybe Kennedy. I think they would have been run out on a rail by their constituents. By which I mean the WWII-era (generationally) Kennedy Democrats (politically) who also (I believe) put country above party and who knew the ills of socialism and communism first hand.

The 'problem' with today's left is it that the party has been hijacked by hardcore socialists. Of course, they say the same things about us. But in my own life and experience, the Tea Party came AFTER (and therefore 'in response to') the country's most recent generational flirtation with the notion of 'free stuff for all'. i.e. Speaking only for myself, my own politicization and graviation toward the Tea Party has been most especially a reaction AGAINST what I see as the increasingly emergent hardcore ideological socialism of the left.

The former one-term Virginia senator and Vietnam War veteran is making sounds about running for president as a Democrat. He was in Iowa last month; a New Hampshire trip may be in the offing, and he's giving a major speech at the National Press Club in two weeks.

He seems an improbable candidate. He has taken illiberal positions, was President Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, has few relationships within the Democratic Party, and has no serious fundraising network.

What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be Clinton's greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.

In 2002, Webb warned of the perils of invading and occupying Iraq; he has been proven right by the violence and sectarian strife of the post-Saddam Hussein era. As a senator, Clinton voted for the war and supported it for years. She recently acknowledged she had been wrong.

As secretary of state, Clinton was the chief advocate in the Barack Obama administration for intervening against Muammar Qaddafi. When the Libyan dictator was toppled and killed in 2011, she thought it would be her signature foreign-policy achievement.

Webb, then a senator, adamantly opposed this venture. The U.S. has since withdrawn its personnel from Libya, and radical jihadists now occupy a compound belonging to the U.S. embassy.

Clinton recently said she disagreed with Obama's decision not to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Webb warns that the Syrian opposition includes not only elements friendly to the U.S., but also the radical Islamic State forces that have wreaked mayhem there and in Iraq, murdering thousands and beheading two American journalists. Syria, he has warned, is "Lebanon on steroids."

Clinton has close ties to Wall Street, a source of campaign funds for her and the Clinton Foundation. Since leaving office, she has received large speaking fees from hedge funds, private-equity companies and big banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Webb, 68, has long taken a populist, anti-Wall Street stance. In 2007, he delivered the Democratic response to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address. Webb declared that the health of American society should be measured "not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street."

He pushed a measure to slap a special tax on big bonuses paid out by Wall Street companies that received government assistance during the financial crisis. When it failed, he complained that Democrats, beholden to Wall Street, killed it.

If Webb decides to run -- fearlessness and unpredictability are his trademarks -- there's plenty of ammunition against him. He's against gun control, and he has made comments that angered feminists, many of whom consider Clinton a cause as well as a candidate, and environmentalists. He also has been involved in numerous personal controversies.

In a recent Virginia Senate debate, Republican Ed Gillespie sought to paint the moderate Democratic incumbent, Mark Warner, as too left, citing occasions when he didn't join Webb in voting along a more conservative line.

The maverick lawmaker had a few notable successes, passing a major veterans' education bill, putting criminal justice reform on the agenda, and calling for a pivot to Asia before Obama was elected. He has criticized executive overreach by both Bush and Obama.

A decorated war hero -- he received the Navy Cross for "extraordinary heroism" -- and author of nine books, he would run principally on the issues most likely to cut Clinton: opposition to an interventionist-centered foreign policy and softness toward Wall Street. He would bring more authenticity to these two issues than any other would-be Clinton challenger. In Iowa, he made no secret of his criticism of Clinton's tenure at State.

Clintonites will dismiss the Webb threat by pointing to his political weaknesses. But here's a safe bet: They will closely monitor his Sept. 23 Press Club speech.

Read about all four at the link. Kasich fizzeld quickly in 2000. Their comments on Carson are similar to ours. I think John Bolton is better suited to advise than be the lead voice. Here is what they wrote about Indiana Gov. Mike Pence

PROS: Pence has left the door open to a potential run and could quickly become a fast rising favorite if he joins the fray.

He has a long track record of both social and fiscal conservatism, leading fights against abortion rights and government spending dating back to his time in Congress. The Indiana governor is well-known in Washington, with a solidly conservative record, while his time as governor gives him distance from the unpopular town.

“The most interesting of the [dark horse] candidates right now is Mike Pence,” said the Indiana-based Savage. “People are talking about him very seriously.”

CONS: GOP strategists privately say Pence isn’t sparkling on the stump and lacks a signature achievement as governor. Plus, it’s harder to generate headlines or build a national fundraising base from a mid-sized Midwestern state like Indiana. He’d also have to choose between running for president and running for reelection.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rock solid and un-flashy with chief executive governing experience might be just what we are looking for after the first 4 or 5 twists and turns in the Republican endorsement contest.

May I ask you to briefly restate your objections to him? My impression from his FOX show is that he has much to recommend him, though I think he would lose against Hillary.

In general, I am looking for, and we desperately need, someone who comes from the right and can reach successfully to the center with our message and philosophy presented optimistically and persuasively. Someone with core conservative values, especially on economic issues, who will be the voice and teacher of those to the center and to the country and the world. My view of Huckabee is that he will lose because he is perceived as too conservative while in fact he is not conservative enough. I think he would be a stronger conservative on the social issues, a southern preacher, at a time when most of the social issues are lost and we so need desperately to right our economic ship before it sinks.

GM gave an example of leniency turned fatal and blame shifting. If we forgive one mistake or two, he still has an economic record.

"If you liked George W. Bush’s brand of big-spending, big-government conservatism, you’ll love Mike Huckabee. ... As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee dramatically increased state spending. During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent — at three times the rate of inflation. The number of government workers increased by 20 percent, and the state’s debt services increased by nearly $1 billion. Huckabee financed his spending binge with higher taxes. Under his leadership, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, including increases in the state’s gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds."

There is no such thing as a big government conservative, and the federal government does not have the built-in constraints that a state has.

I think his support for the Fair Tax shows political naivete. We can't get enough votes right now to even slow the rate of new tax increases, but we are going to suddenly get supermajorites in the House, Senate, and states to REPEAL the income tax amendment? That is a strategy, repeal all taxes on all incomes, even billionaires? It isn't going to happen. That is loose talk for a pundit and out of bounds for a nominee, IMHO.

Executive experience is on my wish list, but in spite of Bill Clinton winning in 1992, being Governor of Arkansas doesn't alone bring all the experience, clout and respect that is needed. Also it was a while ago with no further executive experience since then.

I never saw him on Fox so I have missed out on his good qualities. My sister lived in Arkansas while he was Governor and loved him. He talks a good conservative game.

Republicans are going to dominate the midterm elections, but it would be a foolish gamble to count on them to win the 2016 presidential contest. Why is that? Democrats are now a party of the left (no more John Kennedys, no more Joe Liebermans). That means they are driven by ideology and not the pragmatic outlook that used to be the two-party norm.

Ideology soon disconnects you from reality, which is why Democrats will lose in November — that’s the downswing. During the upswing, though, ideological passion provides a sense of mission and hope that can win over gullible majorities.

In 2008, when Barack Obama promised to turn back the tides and fundamentally transform America, he took enough of the American people with him to become the 44th president of the United States. It was a baseless, deceptive, empty-headed hope that made him seem the answer to so many unfounded prayers. Mr. Obama was a lifelong anti-American radical and a world-class liar. He was not going to lead Americans into a post-racial bipartisan future as he promised. It has taken years for a majority of the American people to realize that.

Republicans will win the midterms because six years of radical policies have brought this country low — the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression; the worst unemployment and greatest expansion of people on the dole; an ongoing disaster to the health care system; the destruction of America’s borders; and a global power vacuum deliberately created by a leftist commander in chief, which has been filled by the greatest threat to American security since the onset of the Cold War.

Accordingly, in this election cycle the American people are fed up, and they’re going to turn out the party responsible. That is just this round, though, and there are two years until the next one — a lifetime, politically speaking. Mr. Obama is not an aberration, but a culmination of what has been happening to the Democratic Party during the last four decades. If Mr. Obama is prepared to lie to conceal his real agenda, so is the leadership of the Democratic Party. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a longtime advocate for America’s retreat, has suddenly emerged as a hawk on the Islamic State, as has Hillary Clinton, who presided over America’s catastrophic retreat. While Mr. Obama struggles to make the two sides of his mouth look like one, both Ms. Warren and Mrs. Clinton rush to disassociate themselves from his cowardly retreats. You can expect the Democrats to reposition themselves on many other fronts as well.

Going into the 2016 election, you can count on Republicans to stay “positive,” to emphasize policy, and above all, not to hit the Democrats where it hurts. You can also count on Democrats to do just the opposite. Because they always do.

Mike Tyson once said, “Everyone has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.” Democrats have a massive punch in the mouth for Republicans, and it’s always the same punch. Republicans are painted as racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-poor people, selfish and uncaring. Note that this is a moral indictment. It defames the character of Republicans like the corporate predator and dog-abuser Mitt Romney.

The only answer to an attack like this is to attack Democrats with an equally potent indictment of their moral character. For example, Democrats are actually the party of racists — supporters of the lynch mob in Ferguson, Mo.; controllers of America’s inner cities; enemies of poor black and Hispanic children trapped in the public schools they control; and so forth. No Republican to my knowledge has ever called Democrats racists, yet the latter send their own kids to private schools while denying children who are poor, black and Hispanic the right to do so. How racist is that? Al Sharpton is the president’s chief adviser on race. Republicans will never lay a glove on him for these obscenities.

I have just published a book, “Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left,” using these principles. I’m not holding my breath that any Republicans will listen, though. They are too intent on telling positive “stories,” proposing workable policies and pretending that people will give them a fair hearing despite the fact that their opposition is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to portray them as racists, women haters and enemies of the poor. How difficult is it to understand this: If you are perceived by voters as racist or even just selfish and uncaring, they are not going to have the same interest in your policy advice, as Mr. Romney found out in 2012.

Here is what Republicans need to understand to win: Politics is a street war, and there are no referees to maintain the rules — and the ones that infrequently pop up (such as CNN’s Candy Crowley during one of the last presidential debates) are there to bury you. Attack your opponents before they attack you. Attack them with a moral indictment; if well-executed, it will win the day.

And remember that even if you fail to do this to them, they will certainly do it to you. You can count on that.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

He is several thoughts ahead of everyone else in the room. Clift of course means this to disparage him but instead it gets her attention.

Eleanor Clift on Bobby J:

Eleanor Clift

POLITICS 09.16.14Bobby Jindal vs. ‘Science Denier’ ObamaThe likely 2016 Republican White House hopeful says it’s liberals who get science wrong. But will anyone buy it?Among the GOP’s presidential hopefuls for 2016, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal scores near the bottom, with just 3 percent support from New Hampshire voters in a CNN poll. But his poor showing is not for lack of trying, and the red meat he now tosses to the base is at least of a novel variety. On Tuesday, for example, he accused the Obama administration of being “science deniers,” a charge more commonly leveled at, rather than by, conservatives like Jindal.

As vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Jindal’s been traveling to key states, including Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s also been systematically unveiling policy proposals, like the shiny 47-page pamphlet on “Making America an Energy Superpower,” which graced every seat at a Tuesday breakfast in Washington where Jindal took questions from reporters.

A boy genius who graduated from Brown University at age 20 and turned down offers from Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School to pursue political science at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, the 43-year-old Jindal still has plenty of time to peak in his storied career. He says he’ll decide after November whether to run for president, and with that in mind, his facile mind and his agility with words were tested at the breakfast organized by The Christian Monitor.

Jindal called the Obama administration “science deniers” in his opening remarks. “Let the scientists debate and figure that out,” Jindal said when challenged to say where he stands on climate change, preferring to turn the question back on the administration for, in his view, denying science by refusing to green-light the Keystone Pipeline.

Asked if he personally believes the climate is changing, and Earth is warming, and human activity is at least partially responsible, Jindal resorted to the verbal gymnastics that characterized his responses to most questions. “The climate is always changing, it’s not controversial to say that,” he said. But he again wanted to “let the scientists decide” what’s causing those changes, adding that he hopes human activity is “not contributing” an increase in temperatures. In any event, he’s for “leaving it to the scientists.”

On the other hand, he agrees with conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer that “one doesn’t have to be a believer or a denier to say we should control emissions.” But he opposes the U.S. taking unilateral action and would withdraw from the United Nations Kyoto Protocol governing climate change. He points out that the U.S. exports 10 percent of the country’s coal production, which means that coal is getting burned somewhere.

“Simply exporting coal to other countries doesn’t do anything,” he said, concluding with his new favorite mantra: “Let the scientists debate and figure that out.”

The scientists are going to be plenty busy if there’s a Jindal administration.The scientists are going to be plenty busy if there’s a Jindal administration. In the meantime, asked if he personally believes the theory of evolution explains the presence of life, he ducked, saying local schools should make the decision about what’s taught in their classrooms.

“As a father, I want my kids to be taught about evolution,” he said, while insisting that local schools should decide what kind of science or biology should be taught. In an exchange immediately after the breakfast, Jindal told The Daily Beast that his opposition to Common Core education standards is based on the same kind of thinking, that the federal government should not be imposing standards from Washington. Once an avid promoter of the Common Core, he has said it’s been “hijacked” by the Obama administration.

Whether Jindal is sincerely searching for alternative policies, or he’s engaging in the double talk common in politics, is hard to say. Maybe he’s doing both. As one of the GOP’s younger activists, he pioneered an idea that is gaining currency on the campaign trail among Republicans: advocating for the sale of over-the-counter birth control. “I do see this as becoming more common,” he said, noting that Republican candidates in tight races for the senate in Colorado and North Carolina have embraced the position. “The fact that the left reacted so loudly” told him it was working, Jindal said.

With control of the Senate up for grabs in November, this newfound support among Republicans for contraceptive access could blunt Democratic allegations that the GOP is in a “war on women.” Democrats counter that if contraceptives are sold over the counter, insurance companies would no longer have to cover the cost, which for some amounts to $600 a year for birth control pills. Jindal said all he’s doing is following the recommendations of doctors and medical associations, which say this is a safe product that can be offered over the counter without a prescription.

“It doesn’t stop a woman from getting a prescription from the doctor and insurance covering it,” he said. “This is giving an additional option, not taking it away.” He predicted that insurance companies would respond to market forces and the pressure from consumers to continue their coverage. He said it would be “cheaper” for insurance companies to cover contraceptives bought over the counter than having to pay for doctor visits and births.

A convert from Hinduism to Christianity, Jindal is making the issue of religious freedom a centerpiece of his appeal to the Republican primary electorate. He lauded the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court and said he and other social conservatives were “shocked” at the recent National Prayer Breakfast “to hear [Obama] talk about what’s happening overseas while ignoring what’s happening here at home.”

Jindal will have to elbow others aside in the crowded GOP space for those who argue religion has been sidelined, a belief that’s become almost a given in the current GOP. A better use of his political talents might be in the verbal gymnastics he’s so good at, and in squaring the circle of a Republican Party seeking a future when it is so divided on how it sees the present.

I wish Walker had Rubio's charisma or that Rubio had Walker's executive experience. Walker is just fine in front of the camera, articulate and business-like. Is that what people will want? Or will they want the Greek, styrofoam towers again? The coming primary season is going to involve difficult choices and trade-offs.

We want to win the next election, and win on and with our principles, not win an election by running away from principles.

Scott Walker is anything but bland. He has produced SPECTACULAR results in Wisconsin, of all places - the bluest of blue states. The Republican leadership ought to be crowing about his successes non-stop as a way to promote conservatism - which would win in a landslide against Hillary's same old failed BS policies that got us where we are today.

But - the Republican Leadership are a bunch of ball-less wonders who don't really care about the Constitution or conservative principles - only their continued careers and influence-peddling in Washington. So they don't talk about these things because they don't care - and the voter remains uneducated because the case for conservative principles is never made to them. It's infuriating, and it's completely reversible if the message is simply presented confidently and with the obvious and abundant evidence - irrefutable - that conservatism works every time it's tried. Screw the Mitt Romneys, Karl Roves, and Paul Ryans of the world. Inside-the-beltway establishment, clueless hacks - all of them.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Whoever it is must have what it takes to beat the Hillary, her machine, the Pravdas, and women voters who will vote for her because she is a woman.

Bland, competent, white male with good record will NOT be enough.

Back to Carson and Rubio who I think could reach more people and break that stereotypes, but have no real executive experience? I think you just knocked out almost every other mentioned Republican name. I guess Chris Christie is not bland and Bobby Jindal isn't white. As I said, there are going to be difficult trade-offs.

Your view of Hillary's status and political strength is different than mine.

If it is Hillary, or Elizabeth Warren, and maybe even if it isn't, someone on the R ticket needs to be female. Here we go again with the Palin type VP choice, this time Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte, Susana Martinez? (I googled those 3 names and it was hard to find a 4th. Maybe Mary Fallin, Gov of Oklahoma? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u37tG8fo6VA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOxtdMHDV2g---------------------------------------------------

For the record, I am not conceding Scott Walker is bland. Just passing on what is being said. I think he will run and we will see.

I lean toward Rubio at the start for the reasons Crafty is suggesting. He puts excitement into the idea of freedom in a way that no one since Reagan could. He looks white and with Cuban descent does not share common heritage with most US Hispanics, but he speaks fluent and passionate Spanish and has a chance to make our case to a lot of people.

Absolutely. Just ask all the women around you what they think. If they are honest many will say they are excited about this babe thing. It is no different then voting for nonsense like "hope and change".

Many did not even consider what that meant. It was exciting to them to vote for this creep. Honesty, socialism they couldn't care less. It was all emotional based on class/ gender, ethnic, and race warfare.

" and women voters who will vote for her [Hillary Clinton] because she is a woman"

Same for Elizabeth Warren? She is the current rock star of the left. The energy in the Dem party, if there is any, is on the left. Should Elizabeth Warren wait because this is Hillary's turn? Warren will be 67 (1/2) in Nov 2016 (Hillary is 67 now). And then 71 and 75 in the next two go-arounds. Good luck with that. In both parties, all potential candidates have to figure that this is their best chance.

I think it's almost certain Warren runs if Hillary doesn't. (I fear Warren more than Hillary.) Is Warren too good a friend to run against Hillary?

President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

Mrs. Clinton’s putative bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is already running into trouble. The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate, Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.

Those grim numbers followed on a September WSJ/NBC poll showing a plunge in Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating, to 43%, from 59% in 2009.

And that was before President Obama launched a defiant post-midterm campaign discarding political compromise and unilaterally doubling down on his unpopular policies. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton would likely inherit a damaged party—and as a former member of his administration, she would struggle with the consequences of Mr. Obama’s go-it-alone governance.

The latest indication of the president’s politically damaging approach was his move on Thursday to unilaterally grant amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants. A Rasmussen poll released Nov. 18 found that 53% of likely voters opposed the amnesty without congressional approval, while 34% approved. Moreover, 62% of those polled said that the president lacks the legal authority to take the action without congressional approval, and 55% said Congress should challenge the executive order in court.

That’s a problem for Democrats, who will be asked to defend the president, as they have had to do with other Obama policies, like the Affordable Care Act, that lack the support of most Americans.

Another source of trouble for Democrats: The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is enormously popular—59% of Americans are in favor, 31% against, according to a Pew poll this month. With the project so heavily favored, the president could score an easy win by backing the pipeline, but instead he has aligned himself with the elitist, environmentalist left led by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer.

Mr. Obama’s willingness to disregard the public’s wishes will hurt Mrs. Clinton in particular. The president’s former secretary of state is already struggling to forge an independent identity without disowning the president. It will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to directly oppose him over the next two years, though she will certainly continue to try to distance herself from Mr. Obama, as she did during her summer book tour. But if the president continues to lose the support of Democrats and moderates—as Mrs. Clinton has—she might have no alternative but to shelve her presidential ambitions.

If she does run, Mrs. Clinton could face a challenge from liberal populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Mrs. Clinton has struggled to adopt a populist mantle. The challenge was nowhere more in evidence than when she appeared in Massachusetts with Ms. Warren in October, awkwardly urging the crowd: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” She later explained that the line hadn’t come out right.

Mrs. Clinton will have to work harder than that to dispel the impression among liberal Democrats that she is, as the line goes, the “candidate from Goldman Sachs , ” having numerous ties to the institution. The threat to a Clinton campaign from a Democratic rival running to her left, as Mr. Obama did in 2008, increased last week when populist former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb announced he is setting up an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential bid.

Mrs. Clinton will also have to contend with her role as the architect of “HillaryCare” in the 1990s, a clear forerunner to the Affordable Care Act, which was not popular with Americans when it was passed and now has the approval of only 37%, according to a recent Gallup poll.

It appears that Mrs. Clinton is trying to have it both ways on immigration by supporting President Obama but saying that the only lasting solution is congressional action. And on Keystone, she has been missing in action.

And if that weren’t enough, foreign policy—which should be a selling point for the former secretary of state—will be a minefield. The president seemingly has no coherent strategy to deal with Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria, no coherent strategy for dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin ’s bellicosity in Eastern Europe, and no coherent strategy for dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. Regardless of whatever news emerges from the Nov. 24 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, this story will drag on for ages, as the mullahs would prefer.

All of these foreign-policy dead zones have roots in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, when she logged hundreds of thousands of miles without alighting on any significant successes. The Republican takeover of the Senate may bring fresh attention to her role in the deadly debacle in Benghazi, Libya, with victims that included U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

With President Obama now courting a constitutional crisis over his unilateral action on immigration reform, the Democratic Party is losing popularity by the day. The pressure is on Mrs. Clinton to separate herself from the partisan polarization and dysfunction in Washington while not alienating the liberal Democrats who dominate turnout in presidential primaries. She needs to distance herself from Mr. Obama without alienating his strongest supporters, but she also needs to develop a clear reason and logic for why she should be elected president—a logic that six years after she first declared her candidacy remains more elusive than ever.

Barack Obama could end up beating Hillary Clinton yet again.

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author, with Melik Kaylan, of “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership” (Encounter Books, 2014). Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter .

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been something of an afterthought in the early coverage of the emerging Republican presidential field. That might be a little shortsighted, according to the results of a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week. Mr. Huckabee, who defied expectations in 2008 by winning the Iowa caucuses, is viewed more positively by fellow Republicans than nine potential rivals, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The numbers alone aren’t enough to nudge the former Arkansas governor into the top-tier of Republicans considering a bid, but they do serve as a reminder that many assumptions about the GOP field are dangerously premature. The Republicans generating the most headlines aren’t necessarily the ones who excited GOP primary voters.More In 2016

Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, for example, created plenty of buzz by winning re-election in a pair of Rust Belt swing states, but the poll found that more Republicans know (and like) Ben Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon whose criticism of President Barack Obama and the 2010 health law won a devoted following of conservative activists.

Support for all three is bound to fluctuate once the race gets under way – provided each runs – because half of the country doesn’t know them. In fact, at this point, the emerging field can be divided into three tiers: Republicans most Americans know, Republicans Americans are still getting to know and Republicans Americans are meeting for the first time.

Mr. Huckabee counts himself among the first group. Roughly four-of-five American adults know the former Arkansas governor well enough to form an opinion about him. Overall, 25% viewed him positively, on par with the 24% who viewed him negatively.

These early reviews improve dramatically when opinions are limited to Republicans. Some 52% had a favorable opinion of Mr. Huckabee, who traded his career in elected office for lucrative gigs hosting a nationally syndicated radio show and a weekend talk show on Fox News. Just 8% expressed negative views.

Compare those numbers to Messrs. Bush and Christie, and Mr. Huckabee starts looking even more formidable. One-in-five Republicans view Mr. Christie negatively, about half as many Republicans who view him positively. For Mr. Bush, 12% of Republicans express dim views of the former Florida governor, while 44% view him favorably.

(Mr. Paul has solid support, garnering positive reviews from 48% of self-described Republicans and negative reviews from just 6% of those Republicans polled.)

Almost six years after his surprise victory in Iowa, Mr. Huckabee continues to lead his would-be rivals in most of the early polls of Republicans in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Those levels of support are drawing attention to a guy who has been largely out of the spotlight since he first played spoiler in 2008.

“I’m just surprised that his numbers are as strong as they are,” said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who helps conduct the Journal poll with Republican Bill McInturff. “That tells you something about the Fox viewership.”

It also begs the broader question: What other surprises are in store heading into a wide-open Republican nominating fight in which an under-the-radar candidate enters the race in a better position than other potential candidates generating more chatter?

With all the focus on chasing Black and Hispanic votes, sometime they forget to pursue the other demographics, like white, working people.

"Obama’s approval rating has dropped 13 points among college-educated whites, but a remarkable 21 points among the non-college educated. Why the difference?

(We aren't talking about people who hate Obama and all Democrats, we are talking about people who initially supported him.)

The Obama administration has been bad for higher-income Americans, but not disastrous. Quantitative easing has re-inflated the stock market, and middle-aged “knowledge workers” have suffered less than other groups. But for the working class, there is nothing good to be said about Obamanomics: high unemployment, a scarcity of full-time work, skyrocketing prices of food and fuel, more expensive health care, anemic economic growth, and wage decline caused in part by competition with unprecedented numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. What’s to like? Nothing."

When Hillary runs in 2016 as the heir of Obama’s liberal economic and immigration policies, she will not have [Obama's] built-in advantage with minorities. There is no reason why any substantial number of working-class people, white or minority, would wish for another four years of Obama’s policies. Nor–to put it delicately–is there anything about Hillary’s persona that will endear her to the majority of such voters.

...expect a backlash against Obama’s economic and immigration policies in 2016 that will take pundits–not to mention Hillary–by surprise."

True. That cuts both ways politically. People may want to vote to protect benefits, but may want to vote for better opportunities for their offspring. Obama couldn't run on his agenda again - now that it is fully exposed. Decreasing workforce opportunities isn't what made Bill Clinton appear successful. Quite the opposite. I fail to see how some old, white, rich Grandma is going to excite minorities, young people, or working whites about their prospects for the future continuing the same, failed policies.

If you and your family really are dependent on government benefits, you should vote for the side that will grow the economy and revenues that fund our support system.

"Except for Congressional elections, the most important election this year is the close race for governor of Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker has shown that he has substance and guts, rather than image and rhetoric, by opposing the government employee unions that have been bleeding the taxpayers. He would make a far better Republican presidential candidate in 2016 than Congressional phrase-makers or a retreaded candidate who lost in 2012." - Thomas Sowell, Oct 28,2014http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102814.php3#CUTfI7rIZKDtAPwD.99

True. That cuts both ways politically. People may want to vote to protect benefits, but may want to vote for better opportunities for their offspring. Obama couldn't run on his agenda again - now that it is fully exposed. Decreasing workforce opportunities isn't what made Bill Clinton appear successful. Quite the opposite. I fail to see how some old, white, rich Grandma is going to excite minorities, young people, or working whites about their prospects for the future continuing the same, failed policies.

If you and your family really are dependent on government benefits, you should vote for the side that will grow the economy and revenues that fund our support system.

Every dem voter I talk to says the government will just make more money. I wish I was joking.

"At 2.8 percent growth and using Obama’s current job approval, the model forecasts a Democratic loss of 4.6 points"

"... these models probably can give us a rough sense of what would happen under various fundamentals for 2016. They point to a reasonably close election; they do not suggest that the Democratic nominee should be considered the favorite at this point."

That is why he is announcing this so early - to give us more time to recover from the initial stomach emptying reaction. He is not my candidate. But, ... He was a successful, two term governor, an otherwise divided state, the only Republican to ever serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Many of the better policy oriented candidates have no executive experience. He was considered the most conservative of the 3 Bushes in politics. His record in Florida was more conservative than Reagan's was in California (they say). This will be a long, substantive campaign (I think). He will be known for his own strengths and weaknesses more than family name by the end of it. Support for "Common Core" and amnesty look like his big obstacles to me. -----------------------------

John Hinderacker has an anyone but jeb Bush column out. He admits that his current favorite is Marco Rubio

"Hillary Clinton ... can be had by someone younger: a fresh face, a new voice, someone who changes the dynamic. Pretty much anyone but a Bush, in other words....Polling data suggest that there are more conservatives in the U.S. than there are Republicans. There certainly are plenty of conservatives to put a Republican presidential candidate over the top. But they need a strong candidate to rally behind. This cycle, I think there are a number of Republicans who could fit that description–Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (my current favorite), maybe Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich, maybe Chris Christie if he can define himself as a conservative. There are others who could jump into the race, both plausible candidates (John Thune) and less plausible (Ben Carson)."

If success at the state level were enough to recommend someone for president of the United States, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana would be among the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

...last year's 5 percent income tax reduction, the largest state tax cut in Indiana history." In addition, the state corporate tax rate was reduced from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent, making it the third lowest in the country and contributing to Indiana's increase in the labor force

He served for 10 years as a congressman

Pence's education agenda includes a goal of taking children in underperforming schools and putting them in good schools...largest education voucher program in America.

That is why he is announcing this so early - to give us more time to recover from the initial stomach emptying reaction. He is not my candidate. But, ... He was a successful, two term governor, an otherwise divided state, the only Republican to ever serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Many of the better policy oriented candidates have no executive experience. He was considered the most conservative of the 3 Bushes in politics. His record in Florida was more conservative than Reagan's was in California (they say). This will be a long, substantive campaign (I think). He will be known for his own strengths and weaknesses more than family name by the end of it. Support for "Common Core" and amnesty look like his big obstacles to me. -----------------------------

John Hinderacker has an anyone but jeb Bush column out. He admits that his current favorite is Marco Rubio

"Hillary Clinton ... can be had by someone younger: a fresh face, a new voice, someone who changes the dynamic. Pretty much anyone but a Bush, in other words....Polling data suggest that there are more conservatives in the U.S. than there are Republicans. There certainly are plenty of conservatives to put a Republican presidential candidate over the top. But they need a strong candidate to rally behind. This cycle, I think there are a number of Republicans who could fit that description–Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio (my current favorite), maybe Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal or John Kasich, maybe Chris Christie if he can define himself as a conservative. There are others who could jump into the race, both plausible candidates (John Thune) and less plausible (Ben Carson)."

I hate to say it, but we could use a little gender (and other) diversity on the debate stage. She has executive experience and I assume her own set of ideas and has a much right to it as anyone else to court our support. I also assume she is from the so called moderate wing of the Republican. I hope all the moderates get in and split that vote. It looks like all the conservatives are getting in.

I'm sure we here have noticed the dust up between Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio over Baraq's move with Cuba. IMHO the implications run deep and go to the point I have been making here on this forum about the absence of a guiding paradigm for US foreign policy for several years now.

The implications for the 2016 race of the Paul-Rubio dust up are deep.

Does not Paul come closer to the current mood than Rubio? Does he not score a telling point when he accuses Rubio of backing Hillary's policies with regard to Libya, the MB in Egypt and so forth? The implications here for a Paul-Hillary match-up are quite intriguing. Do any of us here want to follow Hillary in foreign affairs? I surely would not want my son serving her in harm's way-- how can I ask such of others as she empathizes with evil-doers, and, with Huma Abedin at her elbow, supports the MB? Do any of us trust any of the people under consideration to effectively act in the Middle East?

Pair this with Paul's clarion call against the Orwellian State that is taking form as we watch and for a return to the Rule of Law and Freem Inds and Free Markets, and we may see many assumptions about political coalitions shatter.